82Marine89
05-04-2008, 10:47 AM
AT ISSUE: EMINENT DOMAIN
Two competing measures on the June 3 ballot offer different approaches to reining in government's ability to take private property.
Proposition 98: Bars government from seizing homes, businesses, churches and farmland for private uses. Phases out rent controls.
Supporters: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, National Federation of Independent Business, various mobile-home-park and apartment-building owners.
Opponents: Some cities and counties, environmental organizations, tenant-rights advocates, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Chamber of Commerce, California Building Industry Association, San Diego County Water Authority, San Diego County Taxpayers Association.
Proposition 99: Prohibits the taking of owner-occupied, single-family homes for private uses.
Supporters: Some cities and counties, tenant-rights groups, environmental organizations and some water agencies.
Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, National Federation of Independent Business, San Diego County Taxpayers Association.
SACRAMENTO – Dueling initiatives on the statewide ballot June 3 are being framed as a showdown over government's power to seize private property, but the outcome could turn on the underlying issue of rent control.
Both campaigns play up iconic images to sway voters, pitting the mom-and-pop shopkeeper forced to sell by a city hungry for more tax receipts against the fixed-income senior citizen pressured to leave a rent-controlled mobile home park.
Proposition 98 is the more far-reaching measure, proposing to ban government from taking property and turning it over to another private use, such as a mall or hotel. The initiative covers most properties: homes, churches, businesses and farms.
Significantly, Proposition 98 also would phase out rent control in mobile home parks and apartment buildings, potentially displacing tenants and making it more difficult for communities to meet affordable-housing goals.
Proposition 99 takes a much narrower approach, offering a layer of protection for homeowners. But it fails to provide businesses or churches with new legal defenses against forced seizures. Some potential loopholes could leave government with enough wiggle room to maintain the status quo.
“You have one that goes too far, and the other one is essentially ineffective,” said Lani Lutar, president of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, which opposes both measures.
Neither prevents government from acquiring land for public benefits, such as roads, schools or hospitals. Both allow using eminent domain to abate nuisances and clear out crime-ridden property.
If both pass, the one with the most votes becomes law.
This is the second trip to the ballot box for those seeking reforms to eminent domain, a long-standing government tool used to buy out property owners even if they don't want to sell.
The clamor to sharply restrict eminent domain grew loudest in 2005 after a key U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In the 5-4 decision, the court said the city of New London, Conn., could seize middle-class homes to make way for a waterfront hotel and convention center to support a $300 million research facility for Pfizer Inc.
Many states, including California, responded with legislation or ballot measures. In 2006, California voters narrowly rejected sweeping restrictions, wary of the ballot measure that also could have weakened environmental protections significantly and upended local zoning laws.
Click for full text... (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080504-9999-1n4seize.html)
Two competing measures on the June 3 ballot offer different approaches to reining in government's ability to take private property.
Proposition 98: Bars government from seizing homes, businesses, churches and farmland for private uses. Phases out rent controls.
Supporters: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, National Federation of Independent Business, various mobile-home-park and apartment-building owners.
Opponents: Some cities and counties, environmental organizations, tenant-rights advocates, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Chamber of Commerce, California Building Industry Association, San Diego County Water Authority, San Diego County Taxpayers Association.
Proposition 99: Prohibits the taking of owner-occupied, single-family homes for private uses.
Supporters: Some cities and counties, tenant-rights groups, environmental organizations and some water agencies.
Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, National Federation of Independent Business, San Diego County Taxpayers Association.
SACRAMENTO – Dueling initiatives on the statewide ballot June 3 are being framed as a showdown over government's power to seize private property, but the outcome could turn on the underlying issue of rent control.
Both campaigns play up iconic images to sway voters, pitting the mom-and-pop shopkeeper forced to sell by a city hungry for more tax receipts against the fixed-income senior citizen pressured to leave a rent-controlled mobile home park.
Proposition 98 is the more far-reaching measure, proposing to ban government from taking property and turning it over to another private use, such as a mall or hotel. The initiative covers most properties: homes, churches, businesses and farms.
Significantly, Proposition 98 also would phase out rent control in mobile home parks and apartment buildings, potentially displacing tenants and making it more difficult for communities to meet affordable-housing goals.
Proposition 99 takes a much narrower approach, offering a layer of protection for homeowners. But it fails to provide businesses or churches with new legal defenses against forced seizures. Some potential loopholes could leave government with enough wiggle room to maintain the status quo.
“You have one that goes too far, and the other one is essentially ineffective,” said Lani Lutar, president of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, which opposes both measures.
Neither prevents government from acquiring land for public benefits, such as roads, schools or hospitals. Both allow using eminent domain to abate nuisances and clear out crime-ridden property.
If both pass, the one with the most votes becomes law.
This is the second trip to the ballot box for those seeking reforms to eminent domain, a long-standing government tool used to buy out property owners even if they don't want to sell.
The clamor to sharply restrict eminent domain grew loudest in 2005 after a key U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In the 5-4 decision, the court said the city of New London, Conn., could seize middle-class homes to make way for a waterfront hotel and convention center to support a $300 million research facility for Pfizer Inc.
Many states, including California, responded with legislation or ballot measures. In 2006, California voters narrowly rejected sweeping restrictions, wary of the ballot measure that also could have weakened environmental protections significantly and upended local zoning laws.
Click for full text... (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080504-9999-1n4seize.html)